| 1 |
On Sunday 09 November 2008, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 09-11-2008 18:04:05 +0200, Peter Alfredsen wrote: |
| 3 |
> > + # If this is a non-ELF system, chances are good that the .la |
| 4 |
> > files will be needed. + if type -P scanelf &> /dev/null |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I think this is a not so cool way to check for an ELF system. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Indeed, I think it's a horrid way. Please find a better one. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> > + then |
| 11 |
> > + debug-print "Scanelf found, proceeding..." |
| 12 |
> > + ebegin "Removing useless .la files" |
| 13 |
> > + find "${TARGET}" -name '*.la' '(' -type l -o -type f ')' -exec |
| 14 |
> > rm -f '{}' '+' + eend 0 |
| 15 |
> > + else |
| 16 |
> > + debug-print "scanelf not found, this appears to be a non-ELF |
| 17 |
> > system." + debug-print "non-ELF systems are likely to need .la |
| 18 |
> > files." + debug-print ".la files not removed from ${TARGET}" |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> rationale? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
"I've been told" that .la files are really only needed on non-ELF |
| 23 |
systems and with plugin systems that use dlopen. I actually have no way |
| 24 |
of knowing that the .la files are needed on those arches, but I had |
| 25 |
your archs in mind when doing the patch. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
/PA |
Archives